alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### COUNTY OF LANCASTER v. W. E. KENDIG. [In re Opening of First Street.]

ERROR TO THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY.

Argued May 24, 1889

Decided October 7, 1889.

Before Sterrett, Clark, Williams, McCollum and Mitchell, JJ.

No. 261 January Term 1889, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 48 October Term 1884, C. P.

On October 7, 1884, an issue was framed between William E. Kendig, as plaintiff, and the city of Lancaster and the county of Lancaster, as defendants, to ascertain the amount of damages sustained by the plaintiff, by reason of the opening of First street in the city of Lancaster. Judgment by consent was entered on August 81, 1886, in favor of the plaintiff against the city for $400, and against the county for $900.

On July 5, 1888, on motion of the plaintiff in the issue, the court granted a rule on the commissioners of the county to show cause why the amount of the judgment against the county should not be paid out of the county treasury. On September 5, 1888, the commissioners filed an answer in which they made substantially the same averments as in their answer filed to the petition of Jacob L. Frey; see Lancaster Co. v. Frey, ante, p. 593. After argument, the court, Patterson, J., made *602the rule absolute and entered an order directing that the county of Lancaster pay to Kendig the amount of his judgment against the county.- The respondents thereupon took this writ assigning said order as error. The cause was argued with Lancaster Co. y. Frey, ante, p. 593.

*Mr. W. F. Beyer*and *Mr. A. F. Bostetter*(with them *Mr. Gceorge A.*Lane, County Solicitor), for the plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Gceorge Bauman*and *Mr. Marriott Brosius,*for the defendant in error.

Opinion,

Mr. Justice Clark :

For the reasons stated In re Assessment of Damages to Jacob L. Frey, for the opening of First street, in the city of Lancaster, argued at this term [ante, p. 593,]

This judgment is affirmed.
# C_2019372EN.01001002.xml

| 4.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 28 June 2019 — UCMR — ADA Asociația pentru Drepturi de Autor a Compozitorilor v Asociației Culturale Suflet de Român, represented by its liquidator, Pro Management Insolv IPURL

(Case C-501/19)

(2019/C 372/09)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: UCMR — ADA Asociația pentru Drepturi de Autor a Compozitorilor

Respondent: Asociației Culturale Suflet de Rom, represented by its liquidator, Pro Management Insolv IPURL

Questions referred

| 1. | Do the holders of rights in musical works supply services within the meaning of Articles 24(1) and 25(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) (the VAT Directive) to performance organisers from which collective management organisations, on the basis of an authorisation — a non-exclusive licence — receive remuneration, in their own name but on behalf of those right holders, for the public performance of musical works? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do the holders of rights in musical works supply services within the meaning of Articles 24(1) and 25(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) (the VAT Directive) to performance organisers from which collective management organisations, on the basis of an authorisation — a non-exclusive licence — receive remuneration, in their own name but on behalf of those right holders, for the public performance of musical works?

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative, do collective management organisations, when receiving remuneration from performance organisers for the right to perform musical works for a public audience, act as a taxable person within the meaning of Article 28 of the VAT Directive, and are they required to issue invoices including VAT to the respective performance organisers, and, when remuneration is paid to authors and other holders of copyright in musical works, are the latter, in turn, required to issue invoices including VAT to the collective management organisation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, do collective management organisations, when receiving remuneration from performance organisers for the right to perform musical works for a public audience, act as a taxable person within the meaning of Article 28 of the VAT Directive, and are they required to issue invoices including VAT to the respective performance organisers, and, when remuneration is paid to authors and other holders of copyright in musical works, are the latter, in turn, required to issue invoices including VAT to the collective management organisation?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

---
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 58 

Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make a correction 

in the enrollment of H.R. 4240. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 2, 2012 

Mr. KERRY submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 

considered and agreed to 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make 

a correction in the enrollment of H.R. 4240. 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That, in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 

3 4240) an Act to reauthorize the North Korean Human 

4 Rights Act of 2004, and for other purposes, the Clerk of 

5 the House of Representatives shall make the following cor6 rection: in section 7, insert ‘‘is amended’’ before ‘‘by strik7 ing’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of Savannah D., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[943 NYS2d 83]

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on or about July 8, 2011, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that she committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of attempted assault in the second degree and menacing in the third degree, and placed her on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion when it denied appellant’s request for an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal, and instead adjudicated her a juvenile delinquent and placed her on probation. That disposition, which was recommended by the Department of Probation, was the least restrictive dispositional alternative consistent with appellant’s needs and the community’s need for protection *(see Matter of Katherine W.,*62 NY2d 947 [1984]). The underlying conduct was serious, in that it involved violent and disruptive behavior at school, culminating in appellant’s attack on a teacher. In addition, appellant’s school record was poor and she was in need of continuing counseling services Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Catterson, Renwick and Román, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM AHL
SERVICES, INC. CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (UNAUDITED) AT MARCH 31,
2000 AND THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS (UNAUDITED) FOR THE
THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          12,641
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  155,569
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,942
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               194,092
<PP&E>                                          56,871
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,634
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 533,927
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           90,689
<BONDS>                                        221,860
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           175
<OTHER-SE>                                     210,981
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   533,927
<SALES>                                        220,038
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               220,038
<CGS>                                          151,692
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  151,692
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                63,402
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   200
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,444
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    500
<INCOME-TAX>                                       211
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                289
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       289
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Marcelus C. Garner, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s application to withdraw granted *(see, People v Crawford, 71*AD2d 38). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Armer, J.—attempted criminal possession of controlled substance, seventh degree.) Present— Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Pine, JJ.
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 6548

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. KEVIN MICHAEL STEHLIK , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence

. R. Bryan Harwell , District Judge. ( 4:13

- cr - 00694

- RBH

- 1; 4:15

- cv - 03480

- RBH )

Submitted : July 2 7 , 2017 Decided: August 1, 2017

Before AGEE and FLOYD , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Kevin Michael Stehlik, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 P ER CURIAM: Kevin Michael Stehlik seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by de monstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Stehlik has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequat ely presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Angelis, Appellant.

[941 NYS2d 862]

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from two sentences of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Mullings, J.), both imposed January 19, 2011, upon his pleas of guilty, on the ground that the sentences were excessive.

Ordered that the sentences are affirmed.

The defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid *(see People v Callahan,*80 NY2d 273, 283 [1992]; *People v Bradshaw,*76 AD3d 566, 568-569 [2010]), and, thus, does not preclude review of his excessive sentence claims. However, the sentences imposed were not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 *903AD2d 80 [1982]). Mastro, A.P.J., Skelos, Leventhal, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

NANOGEN, INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with
the accompanying Quarterly Report of Nanogen Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2005 (the Report), I, Robert Saltmarsh, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|               |  |  |  |  |  |                      |  |                                         
|-------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------
|               |  |  | 
|August 9, 2006 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ ROBERT SALTMARSH
|               |  |  |  |  |  |                      |  | Robert Saltmarsh Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 13a





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the annual report on Form 20-F of LiveReel Media Corporation for the year ended June 30, 2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.  The annual report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





2.  The information contained in the annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.








Date:  October 28, 2015








/s/ J. Graham Simmonds


J. Graham Simmons


Chief Executive Officer











A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.








1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In connection with the annual report on Form 20-F of LiveReel Media Corporation. for the year ended June 30, 2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 1. The annual report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 2. The information contained in the annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.
 
 
 Date: October 28, 2015
 
 
 /s/ Ashish Kapoor
 Ashish Kapoor
 Chief Financial Officer
 
 
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT
23.1








CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form
S-3 No. 333-157078, 333-133890, Form S-8 No. 33-99214, 333-32039, 333-83193,
333-85320, 333-109186, 333-63076, 333-112139, 333-126157, 333-131097,
333-136491, 333-138978 pertaining to the amended and restated 1995 Stock Option
Plan, Employee Stock Purchase Plan and International Employee Stock Purchase
Plan, 1995 Non-Employee Directors Stock Option Plan, Special Stock Option Plan,
SanDisk Corporation 2005 Incentive Plan, SanDisk Corporation 2005 Employee Stock
Purchase Plan, SanDisk Corporation 2005 International Employee Stock Purchase
Plan, Rhombus, Inc. 1998 Long Term Equity Incentive Plan, Matrix Semiconductor,
Inc. 1999 Stock Plan, Matrix Semiconductor, Inc. 2005 Stock Incentive Plan,
msystems Ltd. 2003 Stock Option and Restricted Stock Incentive Plan and the
msystems Ltd. Section 102 Stock Option/Stock Purchase and Stock Option Plans) of
SanDisk Corporation, of our reports dated February 20, 2009, with respect
to the Consolidated Financial Statements of SanDisk Corporation and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of SanDisk
Corporation, included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended December 28, 2008.











/s/ Ernst
& Young LLP








San Jose,
California


February 20,
2009
----

| (1)   | the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2)   | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/ Mary T. Minch                                                              |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Name:  Mary T. Minch                                                 |
|   | Title: Executive Vice President-Finance, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary |

----
# C_2020390EN.01002902.xml

| 16.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 390/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 390/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Pshonka v Council

(Case T-291/19) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list - Council’s obligation to verify that the decision of an authority of a third State was taken in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection)

(2020/C 390/41)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Viktor Pavlovych Pshonka (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by M. Mleziva, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by R. Pekař and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/354 of 4 March 2019 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2019 L 64, p. 7) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/352 of 4 March 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2019 L 64, p. 1), in so far as those acts maintain the applicant’s name on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/354 of 4 March 2019 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/352 of 4 March 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as the name of Mr Viktor Pavlovych Pshonka was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/354 of 4 March 2019 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/352 of 4 March 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as the name of Mr Viktor Pavlovych Pshonka was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures;

| 2. | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 246, 22.7.2019.

---
**Exhibit 32.2****Certification of Periodic Report**     Pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned officerof Renaissance Learning, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies that, to the undersigned’sknowledge: (1) the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007(the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Dated: August 8, 2007